Reason: No sources for this principle of Japanese swordplay. I think what the author is trying to convey, is that you should cut the person with your handguard. As in, use your sword by swinging it farther outwards. That is not notable, as this basic principle of sword fighting could be better described in a single sentence in the Kendo article, if it even exists at all, as the article actually says that it was invented at a Kendo seminar.
Reason: Unverifiable information abounds, and unless somebody could add in some sources, I think this should be deleted as non-notable. The only sources is the official school website, which falls under self published sources, and is not reliable.
Reason: Non-notable evangelist. The sources don't give any coverage of him, as they are all homepages, with the exception of the third, which is just a search for his name.
Reason: Non-notable artist. She wrote some books, and also contributes to X-Tra Arts Quarterly, some sort of artist newsletter. She also collaborated with Martin Kersels. She is not regarded as an important figure, has not pioneered any new art styles, hasn't written any really good books, and also hasn't been significantly acclaimed, thereby failing
WP:AUTHOR. According to
WP:NACADEMICS, she'd have to make a big contribution to her area of study, (hasn't happened), get a highly prestigious award (no awards), has to be an elected member of a highly prestigious organization (X-TRA Contemporary Art Quarterly doesn't really apply). X-TRA Contemporary Art Quarterly isn't a well respected academic journal. The only criteria I can think of is criteria 6 (which states that if the person was at a highest level at an institution that person is notable), although Leslie Dick is a program co-director, meaning that she is not the highest level at the institution of CalArts, rather a co-director of one of the programs, of which the program's actual director is Tom Leeser. As well, the references provided don't significantly cover Leslie Dick, with the first and second sources (X-Tra arts and CalArts) being affiliated, and the third source being a recounting/story of an experience she had in the city once (primary source as well as presumably partially written by Leslie Dick). The fourth source is other author "reviews" of her book (no editorial control). The fifth and sixth sources are Kirkus reviews of her books, which may allow it to pass
WP:BKCRIT if you have an extremely liberal interpretation of that policy. The
WP:BKCRIT states however, there must be multiple, independent, reviews of the subject, of which some must be more of a plot summary. I only see Kirkus Reviews, and the first is only a glorified plot summary, and openly admits that it doesn't analyze it. The second book, "The Skull of Charlotte Corday", also only has this one Kirkus review. The seventh source just states that she contributed to a book about another author. The eight source also falls very short, simply stating she collaborated with Martin Kersels, a kind of notable artist who is another co-director at CalArts. In the ninth source, it is simply a promotional piece for a museums exhibition of an experimental slideshow of some sort. The tenth source, Seven Days in the Art World, is quite literally a 3 paragraph interview with Leslie Dick, about the art world. Pretty much a quotation. Taking the
WP:NACADEMIC,
WP:CREATIVE, and
WP:AUTHOR notability criterions into account (of which Dick fails all of them), as well as the inability of the included sources to evidence the notability of Leslie Dick, combined with a lack of non affiliated sources about Leslie Dick, leads me to conclude that there is a lack of notability of Leslie Dick for the foreseeable future.
Reason: Non-notable Australian suffragist, only one source (the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which covers her in a shared entry with her sister, and mostly covering her sister in that entry, giving Isabella a passing mention), and only one other I could find was from the
Australian Women's Register, which exclusively used the aforementioned ADB as a source, only restating info found in the ADB. Notability requires multiple sources, and since the Australian Women's Register only rephrased the ADB, it should be treated as the same source.
Also, based on
WP:ANYBIO, she would not be notable, as being "the first female inspector of public schools" is not very notable, and the ADB says she was the "first female inspector" (this is under the Early Closing Act of 1899, which moderately expanded the scope of inspectors to cover shops [and no mention of schools]), I would say that is a blatant lie, since
Augusta Zadow was the first female government inspector in Australia. Since Isabella Golding's "claim to fame", so to speak, would be being the first female inspector, the fact that she is not the first female inspector pretty much makes her non-notable (as per
WP:ANYBIO, because her well-known or significant honor [that of being the first female inspector] or alternately, her widely-recognized [no sources other than the ADB recognize her, and the ADB only recognizes her in conjunction with her sister] contribution, doesn't actually exist).
Reason: An extremely small private school. Can't find any reliable sources that establish notability, and
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES suggests that, since this is essentially a middle school, it should be deleted. Also, all the sources in the article are from their website.
Reason: Non-notable movie, only refs are to the website, and Rotten Tomatoes has quite literally 0 reviews by critics (
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chick_magnet_2011/reviews/). If that isn't an indicator of non-notability, I don't know what is. Also, doesn't fulfill any of the
WP:NFILM criterion. On IMDB, the only "professional" reviews are from Movie Buzzers (a site I'm not going on as Google says it has malware), "Movie Mavericks", a
WP:Self published source, and a blogspot website in German. Unless this movie is taught in some high level university classes, which I highly doubt, or was selected for preservation in a national archive, or is a huge milestone in film making, I do not think that this film is currently notable in any way whatsoever, will not be notable in the foreseeable future, and could only possibly be notable if thousands of years from now, archaeologists lose literally all knowledge of the film industry for millenia, and this film is discovered like the Rosetta Stone, and is hailed as representative of the gradual quantity increase of independent movies and the consequent downturn in quality amongst them. But the Rosetta Stone was at least notable outside of being discovered.
Reason: Based off of affiliated sources, which can't establish notability. Only article that isn't affiliated is the Karpf ref, which has absolutely no mention of WAM.
Reason: Despite the name, this is not a "college" in the English sense of the word, it is a school for the 3rd to 6th grades/years, making it an elementary school. The lack of sources I can find covering this school means that it should probably be deleted, failing
WP:ORG, and
WP:GNG.
Reason: Fails
WP:NCORP. Almost all citations are affiliated with the architecture firm in question and said firm only has a few minor industry awards. Borderline G11
Reason: Highly doubt this entity at the University of Toronto is notable. Article has exactly one reference that supports almost none of the content.
Binging "Tanz CRND" or "Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases" yields no sources that are unaffiliated with the university, let alone any reliable sources covering this institute in enough detail to satisfy
WP:NORG. Also note
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, generally sub-entities of larger universities aren't notable unless they've made significant contributions to the field that they're situated in. This entity does not appear to be any any special significance; I could not find sources backing up the claims that Tanz CRND's discoveries are especially important.
Reason: Non-notable sub entity of
Western University. Most of the claims in the article were written by
User:Ichil.ivey, who likely has a conflict of interest with respect to the subject. Much of the exaggerated claims about the centre's importance are uncited and unsupported; the ones that are cited are cited to the university itself. This shouldn't be a merge, so much as a straight out deletion since the content isn't very useful. After scrolling through several pages of
Bing results, I have been unable to find any independent reliable sources that even mention the "Ivey International Centre for Health Innovation". The only sources I could find are the school itself, the Government of Canada announcing they've funded the school, and a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors. So this fails
WP:NORG. Also note that the pseudo-policy
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that articles on subentities of universities can be kept if they have significant contributions to their field. The Ivey International Centre for Health Innovation has not made any significant contributions to its field that I am aware of.
Reason: Doubt this is notable. Completely unsourced and seems to fail
WP:NORG. Note
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that says that subentities of universities are generally only notable if they have made "significant contributions" to their field.
Reason: I really doubt this is notable. I'm not particularly sure what it is, but it seems to fail
WP:NORG given I can't find any coverage of it online. Perhaps it's a student group of some kind?
Reason: Non-notable subentity of the University of Pennsylvania. Fails
WP:NORG. Also see
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, subentities of schools are not usually notable unless they make significant contributions to their field. Not seeing that here.
Reason: Non-notable sub-entity of the University of Pennsyvlania. Fails
WP:NORG as I couldn't find many sources that actually cover the centre in depth. While experts from the centre have been quoted many times in news articles, that doesn't pass NORG. Additionally see
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which explains that generally subentities of universities aren't kept unless they have made significant contributions to their field, which doesn't appear to be supported by the sources here.
Reason: Non-notable sub-entity of the
University of Pennsylvania. Article was created by the possibly affiliated editor
Indiastudies and is somewhat promotional and poorly referenced to independent sources. The only independent source;
rediff, is an example of trivial coverage of personnel changes that doesn't satisfy
WP:NORG.
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that subentities of universities are generally kept if they've made "significant contributions" to their field. While arguably CASI is the leading center for India studies in the United States, that is because it's the only center for India studies in the United States. If one was to judge CASI against academic research centers in the US that focus on other countries (like the many that study China), CASI is not a very important center.
Reason: Non-notable minor Communist party. Provided sources fail to demonstrate the requirements of
WP:NORG. Could not find any reliable sources covering this party after a
Bing search. Note that this is not the "main" Communist party of Cote D'ivoire and is a minor fringe group following
Hoxhaism.
Reason: By definition, a West Pole cannot geographically exist as the "poles" refers to the rotation of the Earth and the Earth only rotates around the North/South poles. I doubt The West Pole is notable.
Reason: No sources for this principle of Japanese swordplay. I think what the author is trying to convey, is that you should cut the person with your handguard. As in, use your sword by swinging it farther outwards. That is not notable, as this basic principle of sword fighting could be better described in a single sentence in the Kendo article, if it even exists at all, as the article actually says that it was invented at a Kendo seminar.
Reason: Unverifiable information abounds, and unless somebody could add in some sources, I think this should be deleted as non-notable. The only sources is the official school website, which falls under self published sources, and is not reliable.
Reason: Non-notable evangelist. The sources don't give any coverage of him, as they are all homepages, with the exception of the third, which is just a search for his name.
Reason: Non-notable artist. She wrote some books, and also contributes to X-Tra Arts Quarterly, some sort of artist newsletter. She also collaborated with Martin Kersels. She is not regarded as an important figure, has not pioneered any new art styles, hasn't written any really good books, and also hasn't been significantly acclaimed, thereby failing
WP:AUTHOR. According to
WP:NACADEMICS, she'd have to make a big contribution to her area of study, (hasn't happened), get a highly prestigious award (no awards), has to be an elected member of a highly prestigious organization (X-TRA Contemporary Art Quarterly doesn't really apply). X-TRA Contemporary Art Quarterly isn't a well respected academic journal. The only criteria I can think of is criteria 6 (which states that if the person was at a highest level at an institution that person is notable), although Leslie Dick is a program co-director, meaning that she is not the highest level at the institution of CalArts, rather a co-director of one of the programs, of which the program's actual director is Tom Leeser. As well, the references provided don't significantly cover Leslie Dick, with the first and second sources (X-Tra arts and CalArts) being affiliated, and the third source being a recounting/story of an experience she had in the city once (primary source as well as presumably partially written by Leslie Dick). The fourth source is other author "reviews" of her book (no editorial control). The fifth and sixth sources are Kirkus reviews of her books, which may allow it to pass
WP:BKCRIT if you have an extremely liberal interpretation of that policy. The
WP:BKCRIT states however, there must be multiple, independent, reviews of the subject, of which some must be more of a plot summary. I only see Kirkus Reviews, and the first is only a glorified plot summary, and openly admits that it doesn't analyze it. The second book, "The Skull of Charlotte Corday", also only has this one Kirkus review. The seventh source just states that she contributed to a book about another author. The eight source also falls very short, simply stating she collaborated with Martin Kersels, a kind of notable artist who is another co-director at CalArts. In the ninth source, it is simply a promotional piece for a museums exhibition of an experimental slideshow of some sort. The tenth source, Seven Days in the Art World, is quite literally a 3 paragraph interview with Leslie Dick, about the art world. Pretty much a quotation. Taking the
WP:NACADEMIC,
WP:CREATIVE, and
WP:AUTHOR notability criterions into account (of which Dick fails all of them), as well as the inability of the included sources to evidence the notability of Leslie Dick, combined with a lack of non affiliated sources about Leslie Dick, leads me to conclude that there is a lack of notability of Leslie Dick for the foreseeable future.
Reason: Non-notable Australian suffragist, only one source (the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which covers her in a shared entry with her sister, and mostly covering her sister in that entry, giving Isabella a passing mention), and only one other I could find was from the
Australian Women's Register, which exclusively used the aforementioned ADB as a source, only restating info found in the ADB. Notability requires multiple sources, and since the Australian Women's Register only rephrased the ADB, it should be treated as the same source.
Also, based on
WP:ANYBIO, she would not be notable, as being "the first female inspector of public schools" is not very notable, and the ADB says she was the "first female inspector" (this is under the Early Closing Act of 1899, which moderately expanded the scope of inspectors to cover shops [and no mention of schools]), I would say that is a blatant lie, since
Augusta Zadow was the first female government inspector in Australia. Since Isabella Golding's "claim to fame", so to speak, would be being the first female inspector, the fact that she is not the first female inspector pretty much makes her non-notable (as per
WP:ANYBIO, because her well-known or significant honor [that of being the first female inspector] or alternately, her widely-recognized [no sources other than the ADB recognize her, and the ADB only recognizes her in conjunction with her sister] contribution, doesn't actually exist).
Reason: An extremely small private school. Can't find any reliable sources that establish notability, and
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES suggests that, since this is essentially a middle school, it should be deleted. Also, all the sources in the article are from their website.
Reason: Non-notable movie, only refs are to the website, and Rotten Tomatoes has quite literally 0 reviews by critics (
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chick_magnet_2011/reviews/). If that isn't an indicator of non-notability, I don't know what is. Also, doesn't fulfill any of the
WP:NFILM criterion. On IMDB, the only "professional" reviews are from Movie Buzzers (a site I'm not going on as Google says it has malware), "Movie Mavericks", a
WP:Self published source, and a blogspot website in German. Unless this movie is taught in some high level university classes, which I highly doubt, or was selected for preservation in a national archive, or is a huge milestone in film making, I do not think that this film is currently notable in any way whatsoever, will not be notable in the foreseeable future, and could only possibly be notable if thousands of years from now, archaeologists lose literally all knowledge of the film industry for millenia, and this film is discovered like the Rosetta Stone, and is hailed as representative of the gradual quantity increase of independent movies and the consequent downturn in quality amongst them. But the Rosetta Stone was at least notable outside of being discovered.
Reason: Based off of affiliated sources, which can't establish notability. Only article that isn't affiliated is the Karpf ref, which has absolutely no mention of WAM.
Reason: Despite the name, this is not a "college" in the English sense of the word, it is a school for the 3rd to 6th grades/years, making it an elementary school. The lack of sources I can find covering this school means that it should probably be deleted, failing
WP:ORG, and
WP:GNG.
Reason: Fails
WP:NCORP. Almost all citations are affiliated with the architecture firm in question and said firm only has a few minor industry awards. Borderline G11
Reason: Highly doubt this entity at the University of Toronto is notable. Article has exactly one reference that supports almost none of the content.
Binging "Tanz CRND" or "Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases" yields no sources that are unaffiliated with the university, let alone any reliable sources covering this institute in enough detail to satisfy
WP:NORG. Also note
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, generally sub-entities of larger universities aren't notable unless they've made significant contributions to the field that they're situated in. This entity does not appear to be any any special significance; I could not find sources backing up the claims that Tanz CRND's discoveries are especially important.
Reason: Non-notable sub entity of
Western University. Most of the claims in the article were written by
User:Ichil.ivey, who likely has a conflict of interest with respect to the subject. Much of the exaggerated claims about the centre's importance are uncited and unsupported; the ones that are cited are cited to the university itself. This shouldn't be a merge, so much as a straight out deletion since the content isn't very useful. After scrolling through several pages of
Bing results, I have been unable to find any independent reliable sources that even mention the "Ivey International Centre for Health Innovation". The only sources I could find are the school itself, the Government of Canada announcing they've funded the school, and a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors. So this fails
WP:NORG. Also note that the pseudo-policy
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that articles on subentities of universities can be kept if they have significant contributions to their field. The Ivey International Centre for Health Innovation has not made any significant contributions to its field that I am aware of.
Reason: Doubt this is notable. Completely unsourced and seems to fail
WP:NORG. Note
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that says that subentities of universities are generally only notable if they have made "significant contributions" to their field.
Reason: I really doubt this is notable. I'm not particularly sure what it is, but it seems to fail
WP:NORG given I can't find any coverage of it online. Perhaps it's a student group of some kind?
Reason: Non-notable subentity of the University of Pennsylvania. Fails
WP:NORG. Also see
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, subentities of schools are not usually notable unless they make significant contributions to their field. Not seeing that here.
Reason: Non-notable sub-entity of the University of Pennsyvlania. Fails
WP:NORG as I couldn't find many sources that actually cover the centre in depth. While experts from the centre have been quoted many times in news articles, that doesn't pass NORG. Additionally see
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which explains that generally subentities of universities aren't kept unless they have made significant contributions to their field, which doesn't appear to be supported by the sources here.
Reason: Non-notable sub-entity of the
University of Pennsylvania. Article was created by the possibly affiliated editor
Indiastudies and is somewhat promotional and poorly referenced to independent sources. The only independent source;
rediff, is an example of trivial coverage of personnel changes that doesn't satisfy
WP:NORG.
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that subentities of universities are generally kept if they've made "significant contributions" to their field. While arguably CASI is the leading center for India studies in the United States, that is because it's the only center for India studies in the United States. If one was to judge CASI against academic research centers in the US that focus on other countries (like the many that study China), CASI is not a very important center.
Reason: Non-notable minor Communist party. Provided sources fail to demonstrate the requirements of
WP:NORG. Could not find any reliable sources covering this party after a
Bing search. Note that this is not the "main" Communist party of Cote D'ivoire and is a minor fringe group following
Hoxhaism.
Reason: By definition, a West Pole cannot geographically exist as the "poles" refers to the rotation of the Earth and the Earth only rotates around the North/South poles. I doubt The West Pole is notable.